We are told that if a man is with a woman and succeeds...

We are told that if a man is with a woman and succeeds, she is responsible for half of that success so if they break up she deserves half of his resources.

By that same logic, does that mean that men who fail should only be held half accountable for it because some woman who was supposed to be the other half of his success didn't do her part? So it really isn't his own fault for failing?

tl;dr Is it hypocritical for people to say women deserve half when their man succeeds, but blame men without a supportive woman for failing?

Other urls found in this thread:

cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a5316/why-every-woman-should-get-a-prenup/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Women always win.
/thread

Just hire a fat hooker already and get it done with user

This isn't even about whether women win. It's a question about the consistency of beliefs, including even on this board.

I'm married. So what does that have to do with the question

Is anyone going to answer what I asked about whether it's hypocritical?

Keely Hazel for you who want to know

Hey now! Marriage law is fair because when a man marries a rich woman, he can divorce her to claim half the assets. Just like women do.

What's that? No rich woman is going to marry a poor man? Let's pretend it's cause they're "smarter than that" and not completely self-serving.

Completely missing the point. This wasn't a men vs. women question. The question is about if a partner deserves half credit for success, then when someone fails, does the partner get half blame. Also, if a person without any partner at all fails is it not really their fault since they are missing that half of the input that the partner would have given? It only seems logical to me.

Pithy quotes about a greater woman standing behind great men are unrelated to spousal support, which is granted out of the understanding that the recipient's life is more greatly disrupted by the divorce. Also, the allotment isn't usually anywhere near 'half'.

You dont' even have to get into spousal support and it doesn't matter which gender direction. The point is we celebrate that a person succeeds in great part because of the support of the partner. Yet when someone doesn't have a partner like that, we don't accept that as a reason for them not succeeding. It sounds inconsistent.

That only applies to christians and atheists. Muslims for example has separate economies for the man and woman.

While in Christianity women are not really allowed to own anything, they are property themselves and modernity changed it so that it still have the nonsense "one economy" as a married couple.

This is not really a question about economics. You can take the money out of it if you want as that was only an example of a symbol of this idea. The question is about credit vs. blame in cases of success and failure.

We don't think about failures at all, really.

Only if the woman or man is directly responsible for the success. Non of that emotional support bullshit. But asking the left to have consistent beliefs is a waste of time. The double-think is too strong.

We sure do. We look down on unsuccessful men. We call them betas. We act like they are weak. But we don't say "Oh they must have a partner who isn't doing their share" or "Of course they aren't succeeding, they don't have a supportive partner to carry half the weight." In fact, we mock them even more if they don't have a partner for not having one.

That's some real good thinking. But that's not how women use words and thoughts.

Just imagine that you are the most important thing in the universe, and that you deserve everything you want at all times. Now you're thinking like a woman! So of course women deserve more of men's money, and of course they aren't to blame when men fail.

>None of that emotional support bullshit

How is it bullshit? We can even show specific hormonal changes in the body as a result of certain types of emotional support and bonding. Are you seriously acting like having an emotionally supportive partner doesn't massively affect a person on every level?

But it's not only women that think this way. Men do too. You obviously didn't read the thread. I already said this isn't about the money, per se. And it isn't even specific to one gender or the other and applies in both directions.

That's a bullshit excuse. The emotional "support" partner doesn't have skin in the game. So they don't deserve anything. They didn't have to plant the seeds, reap the wheat, etc. so they shouldn't get any bread.

Yeah, it is only women that feel that way. Men sacrifice, women leech. And if you don't believe me, you're in for a life of disappointment. You are wrong, bye.

Based jap.

dude, I mistakenly thought you were reading the thread. You're right back to the money issue. I explained that was only an example, a symbol. I wish I hadn't even mentioned the money part as now that's all anyone talks about. This is about credit and blame socially. Not about money.

Men judge people as failures without considering if they had a supportive partner or not just as women do. That is what the thread is about, it's about how we judge people's successes taking into account partners, but judge their failures without taking that into account (or their lack thereof). Get it?

Right. So if the partner is there for emotional "support" they shouldn't get credit for a failure just as much as they shouldn't get credit for a success. However if they were a meaningful part of the success or failure they should get credit. It will never be this way though because of some odd held beliefs about dynamic social structure.

What about someone who has no partner and fails. How much do we take into account that they had no partner?

None. Because they have only themselves to blame. In fact that's a preferable way to succeed. No other moving parts just you.

That doesn't make sense. When someone with a partner succeeds, we often say correctly that they couldn't have done it without the partner. But if they don't have the partner and fail, we don't account for the lack of partner. Those can't co-exist sorry.

>tl;dr Is it hypocritical for people to say women deserve half when their man succeeds, but blame men without a supportive woman for failing?

Completely.
Women don't give a shit if they're hypocritical, nobody's going to criticise them.

I think you're giving the benefits of a partner too much credit. Unless the partner was integral to the success, the person might as well have succeeded on their own. And anyone who gives credit to someone who wasn't even involved in the success is an idiot and should have their opinion immediately be discarded.

If a man promises to spend his life with a woman and has her stay at home - missing out on years of earning and career developmentso she can look after the house/ children, or just suck his dick and make him dinner every night without feeling "tired" - then IF he cheats on her or wants to leave her for an upgrade then she is entitled to half of his shit.
Don't leverage your wealth to get pussy then complain when the pussy wants your wealth.

Jesus do people even read the thread. For the 5th time, this isn't about men vs. women. Men judge other men the same way. Women judge each other this way. It's about how all of us look at success vs. failure and contradict ourselves on the issue of considering partners.

Partners are often very very integral to success. WTF are you even talking about going on and on about partners who aren't involved in the success? Why would you even call that a partner. You're just trying to derail by ignoring the actual topic with this weird non sequitur.

Thanks read the rest of the thread then answer.

stress, willpower, time and motivation are all interlinked with success.
You will be less stressed if you are having your dick sucked by a beautiful loyal woman
If you are less stressed you can exert more willpower in other areas of your life
If you are getting good pussy regularly you won't waste your time hunting pussy or thinking about pussy. Let alone childcare or looking after the house.
If you want to look after your partner and provide for kids that is motivation to be successful, to be a real man and have your woman be a stay at home mum.

>answers question
>get called retarded for not giving the answer you wanted.

Never change Sup Forums

Emotional "support" is not integral. Putting up funds and actually running the business or whatever is integral. A stay at home partner is not integral to the success. It would have happened with or without them. And taking away credit from someone who had to do all the work to someone who didn't actually do anything is stupid.

All of this is true and is just one part of why having a great female partner helps a man so much. The same applies the other direction. It also applies even to just having great business partners or other kinds of partners. It is a big advantage over not having that. Yet we compare people with great partners against people without them as if they are on an equal playing field. To me it's like having someone play one vs. two in basketball and then judging as if they're playing one on one.

What about all the people who succeeded without a partner? You and OP are giving emotional support partners too much credit.

>Men judge other men the same way.

Maybe on the failure, but I doubt many men actually think a woman deserves half of a man's shit if he succeeds.

It isn't that you didn't give the answer I wanted. It's that you didn't answer the question I wanted. Nobody asked about a situation where you have a partner that isn't integral and where you'd make that up i don't know. The question is obviously about a partner, which is someone who is involved. Why would someone who isn't playing a part even be a partner.

Also please stop hijacking the thread to bash emotional support which seems to be some side agenda of yours that you also brought up out of nowhere like a total nonsequitur. It seems like your'e oddly just projecting some experience of you or someone you know into the thread when it has no bearing. This thread is about people with actual partners who played an important role vs. ones without those partners and how we judge them.

But they had the option to get a partner and didn't. At least in the business sense. So they failed because of missteps.

I'm very sorry that you lacked emotional support in your life and now have to rail about how unimportant it is to convince yourself you didn't miss out. I really am sorry for you. But please save that for a different thread, this is not your personal diary to repeat over and over how little emotional support matters. That's really not the question being asked in this thread.

I literally don't know how many times I can repeat that the money thing was just one example that is symbolic. do me a favor and read through the thread and count for me how many times I said it, which will equal how many times you ignored it.

I already answered your question. You're trying to defend your point of view. Work together and succeed or fail both should get credit. But only if real work was done. That's where the emotional support came in. Pay attention.

How do you know they had the option to get a good partner? They may not have met anyone like that. Or the person who could have been a good partner might have refused them or just not believed in them even though it would have worked out if they had or screwed them over.

>but only if real work was done

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU READING THAT MAKES YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. I'm starting to wonder if you're hallucinating or something. It's almost as if you read some different thread that brought up some situation where a partner was conning the other partner. I seriously don't know what you're resopnding to, but if you mention "emotional support" or partners where they aren't actually doing anything again I'm going to ignore it since it's a complete strawman and I've already said so multiple times. Thanks.

Wow. Projection much. All I said is that those who were integral to success of failure should get credit. And that emotional support is not integral. Now. Your thread is shit. It's you and me and occasionally one other person. I'm you're clearly here for an echo chamber. Too fückin bad.
The shitposting has only begun. I'm shitposting this thread with no survivors.

...

...

k will be ignoring your repetitive trolling from here on out.

Silly bitch. I'm ending this thread.

Never post this thread again. I'll find it and I'll shitpost.

is marriage the only contract you're rewarded for breaking?

>hug

Some of that emotional support you desperately need. I'm sorry for how your parents mistreated you.

>implying
cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a5316/why-every-woman-should-get-a-prenup/

>We are told that if a man is with a woman and succeeds, she is responsible for half of that success so if they break up she deserves half of his resources.
We need to first clarify what you mean by succeed and also who told you this nonsense.
>she is responsible for half of that success
I'm assuming you mean "success" as in an objective, monetary, financial sense, seeing as though its a common premise that money can directly lead to happiness. If this is true, then unless she is also contributing monetary funds towards his goal, she is not strictly speaking 'responsible' for his success in that sense. That is not to say, however, that she did not aid him by keeping his demeanor up as his, as other user was pointing to, "emotional support".
>We are told..
Who told you this? Unlearn whatever they taught you. Study this board more.

So to give you the answer in simple A to B form: Yes. It is hypocritical for Sally to hold her hand out to Billy when Billy receives a hefty check but in that same time, say Tom's failure was based upon him not having a wife/girlfriend.

/thread

>literally say 5 times in the thread this is not about money

>get yet another reply focusing mainly on the money

Holy shit I wish there was a way to edit my OP post. Nobody reads threads before responding.

It's got nothing to do with that bullshit, women were entitled to alimony because they were expected to be dependent on their husbands and couldn't survive if that was suddenly cut off, especially if it really wasn't her fault.

Nowadays it's just a relic that women won't give up because they don't want equality, they want special treatment, and far too many men in the system still treat them like children and victims who need their hands held.
All forms of alimony should be legally eliminated for everyone regardless of income. There's absolutely no basis for it in an era where women have access to the same educations and careers men do. If they don't pursue those, that's their fault, just like any NEET who doesn't do anything for themselves.

>Continues to repeat self and not acknowledge, ponder, refute and provide examples to user's response.
>claims that user must not have read the thread correctly.

>user obvoiusly did NOT read the thread because it was pointed out numerous times that the money issue is not central and yet the reply focuses on the money

money is the only issue and if you think anyone means anything else when they talk about women "contributing" you might be autistic

Holy shit, you doubly didn't read it because I also specified several times that it isn't gender-specific in either direction. Well I'm learning very little about my question, but I'm learning a lot about how little people read threads before responding.

You keep whining about people not understanding your point, whilst not giving your own definition of succes. What is succes to you?

You are dense if you cannot see that money is the only concept of success that the partner could be held responsible for. What other form of success could the partner be responsible for other than, as the other user put it, "emotional support"? Is she responsible for his success in the 22k run? Is she responsible for his success in passing his exams and getting a degree? If the answer is "yes" to any of those, the only answer is "emotional support".

The reasoning is more that in a family, someone needs to stay at home or pursue a less demanding carreer and take care of the kids.

Therefore the mother (or dad) sacrifices her potential carreer for the kids, and even after divorce has a disadvantage that she will never fully recover from.

If he "fails" because of the woman she will be held accountable in the sense that half of everything will not be a whole lot.

In my country the matrimonial property can also be "attacked" by businesscreditors of one of the partners. But most people will exercise their profession in a company.

I'm not saying that this holds true in all cases.

>half the blame
Like how

I'm not whining about them misunderstanding success. I'm whining that despite me repeating now 7 times that the money was just an example and the actual issue is social judgment, people keep responding about the money. Also that they keep responding with comments about women and how they are when this applies just as much to men as women and I said so 3 or 4 times already.

Tesla died penniless yet I doubt most of us would consider him some worthless loser. He is widely admired and even revered. Success it not just about money and social judgment is not only about money but accomplishments and status and even just being seen as having lived a very good life sometimes.

You are not answering my question. What is your definition of success?

>By that same logic, does that mean that men who fail should only be held half accountable for it because some woman who was supposed to be the other half of his success didn't do her part? So it really isn't his own fault for failing?
yes and this is already happening
when you're married you are also responsible for paying off your spouse's debts unless agreed upon otherwise in a prenuptial contract

kek and yet another zeroing right in on the money

Seriously guys is there no way to edit an OP post. I mean in one sentence I could put "Edit:" and correct it and stop so many wasted posts that are now irrelevant. Clearly no matter how many times I correct this throughout the rest of the thread people will not even get to read those before responding.

Like if a guy owns a business and his wife is really supportive he will often give her credit and say he couldn't have done it without her. But if a guy's business fails nobody ever questions if maybe his wife didn't hold up her half of the deal while his competitor's wife did. Just one example out of many I could give.

That's not actually relevant. What's relevant is what the people judging consider success. This is about an inconsistency I see in the judgments people make of people they consider successful vs. unsuccessful. but the inconsistency I'm bringing up isn't in what they consider successful or not. It's in who they give credit or blame to. So it really isn't important to define success here as it's a static thing here, not a variable that's in question.

I'm talking about in terms of social judgment, not money per se though that can be involved just as one symbolic example of the larger point.

What part of this argument are you not getting? Your analogy provided no insight but only referred back to the points made in an earlier reply: You must define success for yourself. If success is having a skill or talent, then the partner is not responsible for that other than providing emotional support. If the success for you is financial, then the partner is only responsible for that if they contributed with monetary funds. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

>not a variable that's in question

Yes it is. You have witnessed in this thread that the most common motive for success is money. You couldn't even come up with another alternative yourself.

"The people judging", aka everyone, consider monetary success as the primary motive. I'm not saying I subscribe to this point of view, but it's just how the world works.

The issue here is about conventional social judgment of who is to credit and blame in cases of success (of any kind) or failure (of any kind). It honestly doesn't even matter what kind of support we're talking about either. All that matter is that when certain forms of support are there, we credit the partner. But when that same form of support isn't there, we don't account for that in our social judgment of someone who fails.

You are focusing on the aspects that are static (success and failure and support) and ignoring the only variable that matters here which is credit for having support vs. not giving slack for not having it).

The legal justification has literally nothing to do with one's spouse being half-responsible for their own success.

False premise.

the form of success IS IRRELEVANT HERE. You can use monetary success or any other kind. And it doesn't even matter if you happen to value one kind or another. All that matter is when you take any form of success and look at how people who succeed or fail by that measure are socially judged, you notice an inconsistency in crediting support but not accounting for lack of support.

Another person who can't read the thread. I think I'm now up to about 10 times pointing out the money is just one symbolic example. I'm going to keep doing it to see how many times I can say it and still have it completely ignored. It's starting to amuse me.

Thanks.

Nobody gives a shit if you fail.

This applies to everything

Well I don't know about Singapore but in the US if you are a failure you're looked down upon quite a lot and usually seen as someone who is somehow not trying hard enough or must have done something wrong.

>Read 78 posts to understand my ineptitude in the OP

No. You explain it to me here, where I'm actually reading, or accept you're just a sexist idiot mad about alimony (which is gender neutral in most states these days.)

This is why you don't marry or have kids, they aren't entitled to jack shit.

Not ineptitude. I just gave an example and didn't specify that it was only an example and not the main point. There was no way to go back and edit that into the OP though. Nobody would have had to read 72 posts. I mentioned it like 10 times so if they even skimmed a few posts they would have surely seen one of those exchanges. They're reading the OP and replying immediately without reading any of the thread. It's a sad state of affairs since there is no way I can correct it now. But it's kind of hilarious that every single person who responds does the same thing.

My thread has almost nothing to do with alimony whatsoever. That was one of about 100 examples I could have given. I had no idea using that one would make the entire thread about almost nothing else. The thread is about social judgment. Not about money. I've said it so many times it's becoming a meme.

>It honestly doesn't even matter what kind of support we're talking about either.
It does. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant.

> ignoring the only variable that matters here which is credit for having support vs. not giving slack for not having it).
If someone receives help for their success, they should get credit for it. However, it must be relevant to the person's success (not all personal success comes from a partner). If someone fails that does not have a partner, it is not because he doesn't have a partner to help him, its because he relied on a crutch that he never had.

No if you think the kind of support matters, then you are talking about a different topic than I am. That's fine. But I am the one asking the question and i'm telling you that what I'm asking about is something independent of type of support. If type of support matters in what you're responding to you're responding to something different than what I'm asking.

Wait are you the same guy from before who kept randomly repeating that straw man about forms of support that don't actually help?

> If someone fails that does not have a partner, it is not because he doesn't have a partner to help him, its because he relied on a crutch that he never had.

That logic is literally incompatible with also giving credit that someone who did have support may have failed without it, which is obviously the case quite often, with many times the person themselves being the first one to admit it or even go out of their way to make sure everyone knows that.

There was no "this is an example"

>We are told that if a man is with a woman and succeeds, she is responsible for half of that success so if they break up she deserves half of his resources.
If A
By that same logic, does that mean that men who fail should only be held half accountable for it because some woman who was supposed to be the other half of his success didn't do her part? So it really isn't his own fault for failing?
Then B

However, A is not true.
tl;dr Is it hypocritical for people to say women deserve half when their man succeeds, but blame men without a supportive woman for failing?
The first but happens, but the second bit doesn't.

>But I am the one asking the question and i'm telling you that what I'm asking about is something independent of type of support

You are horrible at asking questions. You are not clear and concise. T answer you are searching for is irrelevant because its based upon flawed logic. Note that multiple anons in this board have deduced the same or similar answers based upon the OP, yet you are still still repeating yourself.

>Wait are you the same guy from before who kept randomly repeating that straw man about forms of support that don't actually help?

This isn't reddit. Focus on the ideas and not the person. These answers are not a strawman just because you don't like or don't understand the answer. Multiple user's have tried to show you their logic and you just ignore them. Maybe next time try thinking about what you're asking for and make sure it can be deduced by valid, sound reasoning before you post a thread about it.

This bring up another point.
If the women is equally responsible for a couple's success, how is a woman not able to support herself when they divorce and in need of financial aid in the form of alimony?

Exactly. Why doesn't OP get this?

White males are the only group dumb enough to put their women in charge. Literallly more racially suicidal as a race than jewish niggers. Goddamnit white people.

I know! I didn't put "this is an example" and now I can't go back and edit it to say that. that is the whole problem.

you're saying we don't blame men (or even women) without partners who may have brought success together for failure? We don't?

>based upon the OP

That's funny because I have repeated about 50 times that the OP needs some editing but i can't so I've clarified all through the thread. It's almost like a new form of trolling to keep ignoring that I say that and go "nope this is what you said in OP and I'll only respond to that."

I focus on the person because that person was a self-admitted shitposter who was trying to derail the thread and not someone to spend time responding to.

...

Blame/guilt based society < Honor/shame based society?

That just defeats the purpose of trying to lose your virginity, though. And men can't be virgins anyway.

Obviously the underlying issue is that men are unable to find suitable partners with whom to have sustainable relationships with.

>you're saying we don't blame men (or even women) without partners who may have brought success together for failure? We don't?
Your sentence structure is abysmal, but after a few reads I THINK I understand what you are asking, and no, I have never heard anybody say "boy, that unsuccessful person over there should feel bad because they don't have a partner, and a partner could have made them succeed," or anything analogous. That sounds like something unique to your experience. Does your mom keep ragging on you to get a wife, and blame your lack of wife for your lack of success? I've never heard such a thing personally, but that'd at-least be believable.

Man i'd love to get myself an English bird with them titties.
There'd be that extra political factor that would make it hot.

lmao

Oi m80

Nothing pisses a britty off like snoggin one of 'is women with the big oirish cock